1) "Putin’s methods are forcing tens of thousands of civilians to flee indiscriminate airstrikes" ?
2)"Putin is not just a fireman who sets fires; he is an old-school imperialist. His operation in Syria is partly designed to divert attention from his dismemberment of Ukraine. And his thinly veiled threats against the Baltic states, Poland, Finland, and now Turkey – whose airspace and relations with NATO have been probed by Russian aircraft – reveal a strategy of aggression that has as its chief goal the weakening of Europe."

This article is fairly inaccurate at best. Point 1 and 2 shows clearly ideological purposes, despite not being the only points which I found misleading. According to international law Putin is the only leader who has the right to intervene in the conflict, because he has been "invited" by the legitimate head of state (Assad) to enter a sovereign country (Syria) with armed forces. US and NATO forces at the moment do not have any similar mandate to operate. All what they did until now is ILLEGAL. Furthermore, it is not very clear what they have done, which is scary and makes their intervention even less legitimate under any regards.

"And, because any such plane would necessarily be flying the flag of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Turkey, or another member of the coalition fighting the Islamic State..."

Really?! Turkey is fighting IS?! I thought they are actually selling their oil and supporting them financially in order to fight Kurds. And I also thought that US, UK and France are sending arms to non-existent "moderate" opposition, which is forwarding guns to IS.
Thank you BHL, for this great piece of fiction...

Bernard-Henri Levy, who openly supports zionism, was one of the advisers who convinced French president Sarkozy to bring down the Khadafi regime. The result is a war torn tribal religiously devided chaos in Lybia. Time to judge France for its responsibilities in the plight of the Lybians and the thousands of Africans who used to work in Lybia.

Somehow many a Western commentator believes that the problem started with Syria's Bashar Assad but is that true? The idea of an accountable democracy sounds novel and desirable in the Muddled political environment of the Region but what and where are the precedents? After president Obama's Cairo declaration there was a glimmer of hope that the US may at last stand up for democracy in the Region but what were and are the outcomes? Long before Syria, the Egyptians started the Spring and it was ruthlessly quelled by a US backed military. In Bahrain it is Great Britain in conjunction with the Sunni Tribal armies that effectively ended any hopes of a franchise for the Bahrain. Such 'WEIRD" ideas were never encouraged nor tolerated in the GCC Sunni Tribal Kingdoms who are all allied to the US and or the UK. Why then could or should Syria be any different? Putin in right to stand up for Bashar al Assad not because that would be in the best interest of democracy but at least the hideous use of sectarianism must not ne allowed to flourish as a ptetext for democracy as the Syrian situation clearly is.

I think Richard N. HAAS is right:
Relatively safe enclaves should emerge from this effort [of Putin]. A Syria of enclaves or cantons may be the best possible outcome for now and the foreseeable future. Neither the US nor anyone else has a vital national interest in restoring a Syrian government that controls all of the country’s territory; what is essential is to roll back the Islamic State and similar groups.

The second track is a political process in which the US and other governments remain open to Russian (and even Iranian) participation. The goal would be to ease Assad out of power and establish a successor government that, at a minimum, enjoyed the support of his Alawite base and, ideally, some Sunnis.

Read more at https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/testing-putin-syria-military-intervention-by-richard-n--haass-2015-10#GAjcr8cHfg6oQX0z.99

Mr President Putin is unable to sustain its initial military advantage for a long time sooner or later he will have to negotiate with the West on his way out of the crisis it is time to give a new start diplomacy of peace and avoid military option would be simply prolong the crisis with higer cost humanitarian longer expect higher the price we have to pay to stop this disaster

"Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s war machine, by using chemical weapons, crossed the “red line” that US President Barack Obama had warned would trigger an American military response.

This is pure speculative and often repeated propaganda. It assumes President Assad would use chemical weapons within a few miles of his own home. Worse, policies are proposed based on an unproven assumption that Assad is that stupid.

We ca not find any solution if are not able to distinguish the cause of an incident from its outcome (s). Thinking from technical point of view is enough to understand that economic, social, cultural, historical, mental and physical destruction of Syria happened because of creating war-conditions. Simply if USA, EU, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabian hadn't set up an illegitimate civic army (FSA) to fight against established legitimate state with all types of weapons. It was completely wrong to supply a group of people all types of weapons to be able to fight against a state possessing every weapons . So the degree of destruction that the humanity has experienced would have been prevented if they hadn't created an civic army.
From the political point of view the opposition justified its intervention; Assad is killing demonstrators, there is no democracy and human rights. Having accepted that Syria was not a democratic country, have Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabian got democracy? Are demonstrators not being killed in those countries? further more every day 90 people are killed by gunshot in the USA and black people are treated as second class citizen. Is it a democracy? Nonetheless there is no doubt that if the external powers had been patient enough to put more continues political pressure on Assad, I am sure a solution would have been achieved to prevent this destruction. Assad was slow to introduce some reforms. America and Israel were interested in weak and politically fragile Syria. In addition, the removal of Assad would undermined the influence of Russia. Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabian were interested in establishing a SUUNI dominated government without being interested in democracy. Conclusion;. The cause of this conflict is the interventionist policy of external powers. Above all, the worst political deal with Assad would have been the best solution, which would have prevented this destruction.

You should know Wolfovitz doctrine. U.S. is giving weapons to Rebel group. U.S. is bringing about turmoil in middle east in Africa starting . Crimea used to be a part of Russia but was given to Ukraine by Khrushchev, a Ukranian. If Ukraine becomes a NATO member, NATO will make a missile arsnal there.

That Russia is intervening in Syria is a sign of weakness, and not of strength. If Russia had any soft power, it would not have needed to intervene. There are even similarities between Yanukovich and Assad: much as Yanukovich was the hugely-detested guarantor that Russia could extend the lease contract for a naval base in Sevastopol, Assad is the hugely-detested guarantor that Russia can retain a naval base in Tartus. And just as Yanukovich was swept from power, Assad can, and most probably will, be swept from power.
But there is a difference between the situations of Ukraine and Syria, and the difference has a name: Iran. It is Iran, not Russia, that has kept Assad's regime going all these past years, but the prospect of a US-led no-fly-zone over Syria meant that Iran had to turn to Russia, and Russia had no real option but to visibly support Iran on Assad's side. Russia has short-term interests in retaining its Tartus naval base, mid-term interests in seeing Isis destroyed, to stop returning Russian jihadists from posing threats in Russia itself, and long-term interests in being involved in any trans-Syrian gas pipelines, be those from Iran through Iraq to the Mediterranean, or from Qatar.
Contrary to what Lévy thinks, what Russia craves is less another Cold War, but membership of Nato. No one in Russia craves the old times where an enemy was just an enemy and nothing but an enemy. Russia, like the US, is permanently trying to develop common interests with nations with which it also has significant differences. Does anyone seriously believe that Russia and China are close friends? Or that Russia and Iran are close friends? The members of Nato are close friends, but beyond Nato, there are only interests and no friendships. Russia craves being an important power: not as powerful as the US and China, but equal with the EU. Russia wants to sit in the "salotto buono". This Russia crave for recognition is nothing new.
China, Russia and Iran are three nations trying to recover from the traumas of multiple humiliations imposed on them by various Western powers over the last few centuries. And as long as the Western powers allow Saudi Arabia to do whatever it wants (executions, beheadings and stonings; bombing of Yemen), the West will have little or no soft power over the likes of China, Russia and Iran. That Lévy has to pen the kind of article that he does, or that the EU releases statements calling on Russia to do this or that, is merely the sign that the West's soft power has also dissipated.
When both sides are short of soft power, hard power is exercised. What else could one expect?

One Black Hawk Down in Somalia sufficed for President Clinton to conclude that Civil Wars were best left alone.
Rather than get sandwiched, best to save your ammunition - deployment only when warranted.
Britain remained on the ascendancy so long it remained neutral in Civil Warfares in its Empire.
China never interferes in Civil Warfares in overseas geographies - they have their hands full within.
America overstretched itself in European Civil Warfares - when DeGaulle despatched the Dollar Standard in 1971.
America developed its Pacific Business, in response to DeGaulle's demarche of 1971 - and rightly so.
Reminiscent of Britain's development of East India Company, in response to its Exit from Roman Empire's embrace in the 16th century.
France got space to develop the European Union, as American energies built its Pacific Power.
Russia - both Gorbachev and now Putin - seem comforted inside a European Home they always have desired.
The opportunity it represents for France and Germany to fashion a European response - is best left to French diplomacy.
Russian relevance in European affairs can become an opportunity for France to rebuild The European SuperEconomics of their dreams.
Russian intervention in The Middle East has the capacity to create enormous economic opportunities - for Europe.
ClubMed has always preferred French leadership in the Mediterranean - ClubMed and ClubRed together can be the dream cocktails.
American diplomatic assets perhaps have their hands full with their Pacific Odyssey - China India Japan Korea ASEAN Australia Canada.
America overstretched in Europe's ClubMed theatre was becoming an interminable quagmire - thankless waste of American energies.
Unless NATO again becomes the only option that works.

Bernard-Henri Lévy believes Putin's objectives in Syria serve to change the rules of his "European game". But the real objective may be to drive the Americans out of the Continent and reassert Russia's influence from Brussels to Tehran.
Putin sees geopolitics as a zero-sum game and he has exploited America's war-weariness and a pivot to Asia to fill the vacuum. Before the annexation of Crimea there was already a feeling among European military officials that NATO didn't seem to matter for US defence policy.
Russia’s intervention in Syria aims to replace Washington as the region's dominant outside power. Before the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Imperial Russia had always claimed the Middle East as its backyard. After World War Two the Soviet Union played a significant role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, which was also a part of the Cold War.
Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser embraced a secularist Arab socialism and had close ties with the Soviet Union, until his successor, Anwar Al Sadat kicked the Russians out in 1972. Syria’s Assads became Moscow's principal asset in the Middle East, since it leased the port of Tartus on the Mediterranean in 1971. Libya under Gaddafi had also been a close ally of the Soviet Union. In 2008 Putin strengthened the relationship, by being the first Russian head-of-state to visit Libya. Putin lost a strong ally after Gaddafi's ouster. Since then he was determined to counter any US attempt to overthrow Bashar al Assad.
Moreover Putin’s highest ambition is to avenge and reverse Russia’s humiliating loss of superpower status after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He takes advantage of an American president, who for seven years has been avoiding to drag his country into another war. That Obama had repeatedly demanded Assad to step down, without actually taking military actions, even after the "red line" was crossed in September 2013 convinced Putin that he had to step in and show Obama what leadership was - quite in accordance with the mindset of "an old-school imperialist".
Lévy says: "Putin is not just a fireman who sets fires". A "fireman" is a fire-fighter, which Putin is not, he is an arsonist. That he wants to divert "attention from his dismemberment of Ukraine", is unsurprising. Lévy fears that Putin's "thinly veiled threats against the Baltic states, Poland, Finland, and now Turkey" harbour real aggression with the goal of "weakening" Europe. He also sees the risk that Europeans would hail Putin as their white knight with his effort to end the civil war in Syria. This would stop the influx of refugees into Europe and those already here could return. Lévy says Putin's move goes down well with many Europeans "from the far-right ...to far-left" and with politicians "of all stripes". What he finds alarming is that "the Kremlin has assiduously cultivated party secretariats across Europe. A web of invisible links has brought into being what could be called “Putin’s Party” in Europe." The fear that the Continent "risks frittering away the very security on which its prosperity is built" may just be exaggerated. There is no guarantee that Putin would succeed where others have failed.

You write a good story but it is full of bias. Why you would do so when many know otherwise seems like you are trying the journalist trick of forecasting how other should see things and how to act. If you are willing to turn around and have a look at the rest of the world you would see that turmoil is everywhere and Syria is just the latest for storytelling. Hopefully historians will piece together the facts from all the bias that has proceeded and illustrate the “who, why, what and where” of the stupidity that has bought us to this point and beyond. Mind you, many of us have in inkling of the truth already.

I am frankly a lot more concerned about Mr. Erdogan's behavior at the moment, than I am concerned about Mr. Putin's actions in Syria. Erdogan is attacking one of America's and Europe's most reliable allies in the fight against the Islamic State, the Kurds, both politically, as well as militarily.
I have studied Russian propaganda for many years and your article Mr. Levy has all the hallmarks of propaganda. Hyperboles like ''Imperialist Putin'',''death squads'', ''populist demagogues'' etc. I am actually surprised not to find the words Fascist or Nazi in your piece, that the Russian propagandists used to mis-characterize Ukrainian patriots, who were fighting the Donbass ''freedom-fighters''. You should have used the word Syrian ''freedom-fighters'' somewhere in your piece, that would have made it more emotionally effective. Also you employ omissions like not mentioning Turkey's and Saudi Arabia's role in the rise of Islamic State, et al., not mentioning that Russia has substantially eased tensions in Ukraine, and in the Baltics i.e. release/exchange of Estonian security agent Eston Kohver, etc.

The Obama administration did not fail to intervene -- it failed to intervene militarily -- a wise choice to my view, and a choice that in no way prevented France and the rest of the EU from intervening militarily themselves. Where were they?

France in particular seems to have chosen to steer clear of the Syrian civil war -- despite having a deeper historical responsibility for it as noted by Mr. Fraser below.

President Putin's intervention in that civil war will either succeed or it will fail. Either way, there will be lessons to be learned by the West -- from the experience of others for a change, rather than from direct bloody and costly experience. And in the end, Russia will end up being hated by a great many Syrians, and we will owe the country a debt for the lessons we are about to learn thanks to their mistake.

I hope my own country will seize this opportunity to get out of the Syrian civil war business entirely. It will be a splendid thing if Mr. Putin can finally clean up the mess that was largely created by Mr. Bush -- savor the irony!

M. Levy "doth protest too much." It may be useful to recall the Sykes-Picot agreement and the role of the Bolsheviks in exposing that masterpiece of imperialist statecraft orchestrated by the French and British governments.

Was America's intervention in Iraq any different? America has become comfortable having the sole right to exercise military power outside its borders. Now that Russia has done it too they are all 'up in arms'. As GW Bush would say "Bunch of hypocriticizers".

The Free Syrian Army might be the least radical rebel group, however I have my doubts, that a still pretty radical military group can be called "democratic opposition"... Which is not to say, that the Assad regime is democratic in any way.

The Russian plan seems to be to support their guy and their port facilities. I'm starting to think that they are also encouraging the spread of the Islamic State to the point where there is constant disruption of Saudi and Gulf Country oil production. The oil price gets hiked, the Russian economy comes back. Win, win.

All the major players seem to think first we'll take care of our opponents then we'll deal with the Islamic state. History is littered with examples of rich, powerful rulers underestimating the effect of economic disruption coupled with a religious political movement that appeals to the disenfranchised former middle class.

The Western plan should be to realise the gravity of the Isis threat. Conclude a pact with Assad to the effect that he can stay in charge of the Western/Coastal region of Syria. Give the Free Syrian Army/Sunnis the rest of the country if they can take it, otherwise if they insist on ruling over the Alowites and the Christians let the Russians bomb them.

Then support the Kurds in their battle with Isis and ask the Turks if they would consider some measure of autonomy for the Kurds in South-Eastern Turkey.

If you ended up with a moderate Sunni Jordan type country comprising Eastern Syria and Anbar Province, that might be a workable result. You might then have a couple of decades of stability until the oil runs out in Saudi Arabia and the resulting explosion from too many people living in a desert country with too few resources generates. As is currently happening in the Sahara belt of countries.

If you don't have a viable plan or alternative solution then waffling on about demagogues and imperialists will get you nowhere.

History tells us that getting a plan together at the last moment as the mob approaches the palace does not tend to be very effective. Only then does the ruler realise that his advisers were useless blowhards and that the state apparatus has disappeared.

"Then support the Kurds in their battle with Isis and ask the Turks if they would consider some measure of autonomy for the Kurds in South-Eastern Turkey."

This must be a joke of some sort. The Turks have been fighting the Kurds for decades to prevent them forming a state in South Eastern Turkey. Of course the Turks would not consider any such thing for one single heartbeat. The author is a very naive person.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.